Can Parliament act against a judge who has already resigned? Constitutional puzzle in ex-judge Varma's case

A complex constitutional quandary has emerged following Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's announcement to table an inquiry committee's report on former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma when Parliament reconvenes on July 20. This move has opened unprecedented constitutional questions concerning the impeachment process after a judge's resignation.

Justice Varma faced impeachment proceedings after allegations of unaccounted cash were discovered at his New Delhi residence in March 2025. He consistently denied the allegations, calling them a conspiracy. However, an in-house Supreme Court inquiry panel found his explanation unsatisfactory, leading the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, to recommend action. Subsequently, removal proceedings were initiated in Parliament, with the Lok Sabha admitting a motion and forming an inquiry committee.

However, Justice Varma resigned on April 9, surrendering his official amenities and privileges, ceasing his judicial salary, and reviving his enrollment with the Bar Council to resume private legal practice. His pension and terminal benefits are still pending. This resignation creates a constitutional paradox: if he is no longer a judge, can Parliament remove him through impeachment? Conversely, if he is considered to still hold judicial office, a prerequisite for impeachment, how can this coexist with his restored eligibility for private practice and the relinquishment of judicial privileges?

The Speaker's decision, made nearly three months after Justice Varma's resignation, thrusts Parliament into uncharted constitutional territory. This situation goes beyond the fate of a single judge, touching upon the constitutional framework governing judicial resignations and parliamentary removal procedures. The case highlights a critical tension between the finality of resignation and the continuation of parliamentary oversight, posing a significant challenge to the established constitutional architecture.